What was the last TV show you watched?

[Doctor Damage]

I saw a couple of seasons of Mad Men - I remember liking the first episodes but I gradually grew weary of the tone and characters. Like much long form TV it felt like a high end soap opera with an interminable narrative trajectory that might only come to a resolution when the ratings flagged.

I watched the first two episodes of the series last evening and was already bored with the story and found none of the characters likeable or interesting. If they all died in the third episode and the office burned down I honestly wouldn't care one bit. I only watched the second episode in case the first episode was not representative, which is common. I'm glad many of our members found the series satisfying, though!

 

[Doctor Damage]

This last few days I've been binging Batman: The Animated Series on UK Netflix. Every single bit as good as I remember it. Ostensibly a kids' cartoon, but one that never talked down to its audience - and is remarkably adult with it. Running 1992-1995 originally, it plays with a beautiful retro-futurism that is just perfect for the tone of the Batman universe. Close enough to modern tech that there's nothing that looks obviously dated - it feel less "vintage", more "parallel universe". If only they could have just once captured this in live action! (Though to be fair the most recent live action film and the series Gotham got very close.)

Oh yeah, they got that series right on target, just the perfect tone. And I'd forgotten how old it is--thirty years old!!

 

[Worf]

Oh yeah, they got that series right on target, just the perfect tone. And I'd forgotten how old it is--thirty years old!!

My feelings exactly. By far the best adaptation/portrayal of The Dark Knight ever. It captured me from day one and I'm a Marvel Man! Many have been called but only one was chosen, and this was it.

Worf

 

[Doctor Strange]

Of course, I've been on the B:TAS is the BEST EVER adaptation of Batman! team since it first aired. I've said so here dozens of times over the years. While there have been some darn good Bat-projects since it was made, none have understood the character and his world better.

 

[Worf]

Of course, I've been on the B:TAS is the BEST EVER adaptation of Batman! team since it first aired. I've said so here dozens of times over the years. While there have been some darn good Bat-projects since it was made, none have understood the character and his world better.

View attachment 585869

In addition to the fine writing and excellent choice of animation style, could it's success also be down to the length of time they had/took to build his world? Multiple seasons grants passionate/good producers and directors TIME to hone and craft their "vision". As I said before... none better. Some seasons of "Gotham" did come close however.

Worf

 

[Doctor Strange]

Of course, Worf. It had the advantage of having hours, whole seasons, to refine its characters, etc. in a way that even a series of films (like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy) can't.

But really, the thing that made the show special is that the entire production staff - Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Eric Radomski, etc. - were themselves huge fans who'd grown up on some of the best Batman stories, like, the seventies Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams run. And they were determined (as in that run, which after the silly Batman comics produced in the wake of the campy sixties TV series found its way back to the grim-avenger-of-the-night approach) to forget the earlier cartoons and treat the character SERIOUSLY.

Beyond the smart writing, the amazing voice performers and stunning visuals, not to mention that every episode had an original score played by a 29-piece orchestra (essentially the last time this would happen in TV cartoons, the synthesizers were about to take over), the series brilliantly managed to come up with a Batman who represented all the best aspects of the character combined. He's not - like Tim Burton's Bats/Bruce - a nutjob equivalent to his foes. He walks up to that line, but never crosses it. His relationships with Alfred, Dick, Gordon, Selina, etc. come across as warm and human in ways that none of the feature films have managed so well.

Even the villains were treated with a degree of sympathy and astute psychology. I mean, the reconceived Mr. Freeze in "Heart of Ice" is a tragic figure; Schumacher's godawful Batman & Robin "borrows" this take on the character.... and turns it into one of Ahnuld's worst performances! I mean, Harvey Dent/Two-Face in The Dark Knight is an interesting, well-conceived character... but compared to the psychological complexity of "Two-Face" Parts 1 and 2 (which blew me away appearing in an afternoon kids' cartoon back in the original run!), he's nothing special. Not compared to Big Bad Harv!

Well, I could go on and on...

 

[Doctor Damage]

^ Your mention of Dini/Timms reminds me that I had a big glossy coffee table book which showcased their artwork for the series which I lent to a friend who was going into animation and who never returned the book. Grrr...

 

[Edward]

Of course, I've been on the B:TAS is the BEST EVER adaptation of Batman! team since it first aired. I've said so here dozens of times over the years. While there have been some darn good Bat-projects since it was made, none have understood the character and his world better.

View attachment 585869

The look was beautiful. I've enjoyed almost all screen versions of the Bat (big exception: Adam West's. I LOATHE everything about that with a passion - not lest because it put me off Batman and bothering to go look at the source material for YEARS). This one, though.... I thought the Batman with sparkly disco vampire boy was great, close to this in tone if not aesthetics. I've long wished, though, that *someone* would pick up the retrofuturist ball and run with it by doing this series except live action .... at least until someone comes along and revives The Shadow....

Of course, Worf. It had the advantage of having hours, whole seasons, to refine its characters, etc. in a way that even a series of films (like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy) can't.

But really, the thing that made the show special is that the entire production staff - Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Eric Radomski, etc. - were themselves huge fans who'd grown up on some of the best Batman stories, like, the seventies Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams run. And they were determined (as in that run, which after the silly Batman comics produced in the wake of the campy sixties TV series found its way back to the grim-avenger-of-the-night approach) to forget the earlier cartoons and treat the character SERIOUSLY.

Beyond the smart writing, the amazing voice performers and stunning visuals, not to mention that every episode had an original score played by a 29-piece orchestra (essentially the last time this would happen in TV cartoons, the synthesizers were about to take over), the series brilliantly managed to come up with a Batman who represented all the best aspects of the character combined. He's not - like Tim Burton's Bats/Bruce - a nutjob equivalent to his foes. He walks up to that line, but never crosses it. His relationships with Alfred, Dick, Gordon, Selina, etc. come across as warm and human in ways that none of the feature films have managed so well.

Even the villains were treated with a degree of sympathy and astute psychology. I mean, the reconceived Mr. Freeze in "Heart of Ice" is a tragic figure; Schumacher's godawful Batman & Robin "borrows" this take on the character.... and turns it into one of Ahnuld's worst performances! I mean, Harvey Dent/Two-Face in The Dark Knight is an interesting, well-conceived character... but compared to the psychological complexity of "Two-Face" Parts 1 and 2 (which blew me away appearing in an afternoon kids' cartoon back in the original run!), he's nothing special. Not compared to Big Bad Harv!

Well, I could go on and on...

View attachment 586515

I've long held to the view that Wayne is every bit as damaged at the others. The difference is that he has contained his darkness within the Batman, and harnessed it "for good" (or at least given it a - mostly, to the viewer, even if we might feel differently about vigilantes in the real world - socially acceptable outlet). What really says to me with B:TAS right from the off that they get it is that scene in the Batcave where - though dressed as Batman - he takes a call as Bruce Wayne and speaks in the Bruce Wayne voice, then returns to the Batman voice when he hangs up. He dies this when with Alfred - it has the feel of someone who has switched between those personas so often it is second nature. I like that. There's also the lurking sense that at any time the Batman might be the dominant persona. Bruce Wayne is in love with Selina Kyle - but it's Batman who turns her in to the police.

The show also portrays Batman as a detective, doing detective work - not just a costumed goon who gets off on cracking skulls. I think that also helps to distinguish him nicely from the villains he goes up against.



Meanwhile, Mrs Marlowe, who doesn't quite fancy binging things to the extent I do, has requested a small break from the Bat, so this week I have mostly been (when not working very late, between teaching and a deadline for a contribution to a government consultation) entertained by a series called Dodger on Disney+. This series follows Jack Dawkins - better known as Dickens' 'The Artful Dodger'. Fifteen years on from when Fagin abandons him at Newgate Gaol, Dodger, we learn, escaped from prison, went to sea, and is now working in an Australian hospital as a surgeon with limited academic training but very considerable skills, largely picked up from his days in the navy. All is well until life gets complicated -falling for the Governor's daughter (herself medically gifted, but obviously denied surgical training because a woman - and that all gets involved in the plot), and then Fagin turns up, inevitably trouble following in his wake. Fagin is a softer character here - an incorrigible rogue, but no actual malice. Played beautifully by David Thewlis - cannot imagine a more perfect casting.

It's a genuinely fun romp which shows just what big-budget fan-fiction can do with a well-worn property when it is done WELL. My wife is a harsh critic indeed of this sort of thing, and she loved it to a 'chef's kiss, no notes' degree. It's clearly been written by a team who completely understand Dickens and his world - the characters, both old and new, are perfectly in line with Dicken's creations. The characters we know of old from Oliver Twist are true to what they were, but developed. Dodger is not the same child just trapped in an adult body - he is that character as he could have become given the life experience he has here. It's just all tremendous fun, a great romp, and feels very true to how Dickens might have continued the story. Highly recommended.

The end of the first series does in part echo the "I've got a great idea..." ending of The Italian Job. Very cleverly designed such that it works as a superb ending in the event that the show was not recommissioned - but also a perfect place to begin a second series, which I gather has now been commissioned.

The wardrobe in it is cleverly done. Everything just a *little* out of date per latest London fashions - Australia in still relatively early colonial days, remember. As Fagin improves his personal lot, his clothes get a little tidier - we see him move from a ratty old felt hat of no discernible shape to a nicer looking proto-homburg style, for example.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I've been watching The Power of Film, a new documentary series on Turner Classic Movies. It's one of the best film docs I've seen in a long time, loaded with fascinating observations about movie storytelling... and storytelling in general. Unlike the last film documentary series I watched (The Story of Film: An Odyssey), which tried to cover too much and frequently had me scratching my head about some of its allegedly definitive statements, everything here is really well thought out. Highly recommended!

TCM Special Theme: The Power of Film

Hosted by Dave Karger with filmmakers Doug Pray and Laura GabbertJust why do we love the movies so much? What is it about this medium which creates the effect it has on so many of us? Why do certain films resonate with people as much as they do? Why do certain films appeal to audiences both upon the

www.tcm.com

And I watched the first eps of Feud: Truman Capote and the Swans on FX. Lovely to look at, but it uses today's ubiquitous jump-around-the-timeline plotting that I find annoying. Can't anyone tell a story with a straightforward chronological attack anymore?!? Anyway, it's well done with a gaggle of wonderful actresses... but it's less than exciting. It will make an interesting comparison/contrast with dueling 2006 docudramas Capote and especially Infamous, which touches more on Capote's NYC life with the swans.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Excellent analysis, Edward.

The only other thing I'll say about B:TAS now, and which you alluded to, is that it was the first treatment of the character outside of the comics to take the approach that Batman is his real personality, and Bruce Wayne is the disguise. This revelatory take on the character - related to the similar Clark Kent is the real guy, not Superman approach of the time - goes a long way in making his duality more believable.

I'm not a big fan of The Batman. Oh, it's reasonably well done, Pattinson and the rest of the cast are fine... But it just strikes me as yet another, let's-go-even-darker, reboot/alternate version of the story that we don't need yet. Anyway, I don't.

 

[GHT]

On the Discovery channel last night was a fascinating short film about how the Fedora Hat is made.
https://www.facebook.com/DiscoveryUK/videos/fedora-hats-how-do-they-do-it/3114016508689575/

From the bales of wool to the finished hat, it was interesting but the finished hat shown wouldn't have been my choice.

 

[Edward]

I'm not a big fan of The Batman. Oh, it's reasonably well done, Pattinson and the rest of the cast are fine... But it just strikes me as yet another, let's-go-even-darker, reboot/alternate version of the story that we don't need yet. Anyway, I don't.

I think it's fair to say the tone of it won't be for anyone. I think the reason it wiggled my wire is that it felt like something of a sweet spot between the 'real world' Nolan approach, a slight turn closer the source material in terms of the aesthetic, and a willingness for a new interpretation of some of the characters. The take on the Riddler I enjoyed as much as the one in Gotham, for all their differences - though I was a tiny bit disappointed they didn't follow through on doing something similar with Penguin. Penguin was not a villain for whom I particularly cared up until what Gotham did with him, and that I did adore.

Just binge-watched in evenings this week the second series of Our Flag Means Death. The same silly fun of the first series, beautifully played out with some great laughs along the way. In some ways a pity they didn't get the third series they'd hoped for for a new arc to the story, but on the other hand the ending they did build in here does have a sense of completion, and ties up all the existing loose threads nicely.

 

[Touchofevil]

More Columbo and not much else.

 

[Touchofevil]

UFC 299: O’Malley vs Vera 2 preliminary fights and more Columbo. Although I am not a big fan of the styles of the 1970s, I do enjoy the early episodes of Columbo much more so than the Columbo of the 1990s and early 2000s. Better stories and acting and in some ways, better styles (probably a nostalgia thing).

 

[Edward]

Recently binge-watched Daredevil on Disney+. Nicely made series, though I can't help but wish someone would give it the full noir treatment and actually transfer the story back to the late 40s. It would work beautifully, imo, with very little need, if any at all, to adapt the source material to allow for a different time period.


Among other bits and pieces, I've also just started watching the BBC's new series, This Town. Written by Stephen Knight (of Peaky Blinders notoriety), it is another period piece, this time set in Birmingham in 1981, dealing with the disparate lives of skinheads, kids of West Indian descent, and the England-born son of a Provo resisting being pulled into a struggle he rejects - all brought together by the two-tone music scene. It's wonderfully evocative of that specific part of England in that very specific period. (One of) the genuine, British experience(s) of that era. Not the flash, romanticised retro of so much else that sells cosy eighties nostalgia to a generation who weren't there (one of those things that remind me why my parents look at me in askance the way they do over my affection for much of the late 40s / 50s). They do the fashions of the period more generally, as well as the specific youth tribes so well - it's especially interesting seeing that combination of older characters still dressing as they would have done in the 50s / 60s, and the elements of that earlier style that were carried through, in a reinterpreted way, in two-tone. One of the best things is the pacing: it's clear the kids are forming a band, but it appears we won't see them perform until, likely, the sixth and final episode of the series. Great character piece.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I watched two of the three episodes of Netflix's new Testament: The Story of Moses to get into a Passover frame of mind.

This is one of those hybrid series a la The History Channel: a docudrama with talking head commentary from rabbis, priests, scholars - much of which goes out of its way to emphasize the significance of the heroines throughout the story: Yochabel, Miriam, Zipporah, Bithia. How twenty-first century.

It's also pretty traditonal in some ways: I guess we're never going to see anyone play Pharaoh with hair, that Yul Brynner imagery bestrides the story like a colossus...

It's not bad. Not in the league of The Prince of Egypt or The Ten Commandments (both of which it borrows from liberally)... but better than Ridley Scott's terrible Exodus: Gods and Kings.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Edward, since you liked Daredevil, be sure to check out Jessica Jones. It's the best of the Netflix Marvel shows, full stop. And I say this as an old-school Marvel guy who'd never encountered the character before. It's gutsy and disturbing.

Krysten Ritter is tremendous in the role, a super-strong but very damaged woman who doesn't want to be a superhero, she's a hard-drinking, bottom-feeding private eye. (Talk about a film noir trope!)

And if you eventually also get through the first seasons of Luke Cage and Iron Fist, check out The Defenders. As with the Avengers, the interplay between the characters is what really makes it.

Matt Murdock: "Turn off the lights!"
Jessica Jones: "How do you even know that they're on?!?"



My ratings for the Netflix Marvel shows:

*** Daredevil/2015-2018 (First season ***½, Second **½, Third ***)
***½ Jessica Jones/2015-2018 (First season ****, Second and Third ***)
**½ Luke Cage/2016-2018 (First season ***, Second **½)
** Iron Fist/2017-2018 (Both seasons)
*** The Defenders/2017
** The Punisher/2017-2019 (only watched First season)

 

[Edward]

It's not bad. Not in the league of The Prince of Egypt or The Ten Commandments (both of which it borrows from liberally)... but better than Ridley Scott's terrible Exodus: Gods and Kings.

I quite enjoyed Scott's go on that for its very unconventional approach, tbh. That it played with the notion of Moses questioning whether he was communing with the divine or going mad was interesting - rather a modernist take, of course, though that's what appeals to me about these things. Whether it's Biblical stories, ancient mythologies, Robin Hood or King Arthur, cinema tells these stories in different ways for different generations - which tells us as much about the times it's made in as anything else. Sci-fi too, of course. A very different take than Charlton Heston, certainly! As memory serves, though, I very much enjoyed the scene of Pharoah's advisers trying and failing to rationalise the plagues in order to deny the message from Moses. For sure an opinion-splitter, though!

Edward, since you liked Daredevil, be sure to check out Jessica Jones. It's the best of the Netflix Marvel shows, full stop. And I say this as an old-school Marvel guy who'd never encountered the character before. It's gutsy and disturbing.

Krysten Ritter is tremendous in the role, a super-strong but very damaged woman who doesn't want to be a superhero, she's a hard-drinking, bottom-feeding private eye. (Talk about a film noir trope!)

And if you eventually also get through the first seasons of Luke Cage and Iron Fist, check out The Defenders. As with the Avengers, the interplay between the characters is what really makes it.

Matt Murdock: "Turn off the lights!"
Jessica Jones: "How do you even know that they're on?!?"

View attachment 604097

My ratings for the Netflix Marvel shows:

*** Daredevil/2015-2018 (First season ***½, Second **½, Third ***)
***½ Jessica Jones/2015-2018 (First season ****, Second and Third ***)
**½ Luke Cage/2016-2018 (First season ***, Second **½)
** Iron Fist/2017-2018 (Both seasons)
*** The Defenders/2017
** The Punisher/2017-2019 (only watched First season)

Thanks, yes- I did watch a couple of episodes of JJ back when it was on Netflix, and enjoyed them. They transferred it to Disney+ thereafter and I lost track, but now we've got Disney in the House, I'll give it a go again.

I've enjoyed all the Disney series I've seen so far - even the much maligned She Hulk (though the Daredevil who appeared in that was an odd misfit against the established character in his own show, so didn't feel at all like a crossover)... the only exception being Loki. I struggled through to the end of season one with that, but I've not bothered with the second.

I'll be intrigued to give The Punisher a go. I was an avid reader of a Punisher title that was available in the UK a little over thirty years ago. I always very much enjoyed when they pitted him against Daredevil, given their rather different approaches. The TV show added another nice layer to that with Foggy being the opposite extreme and Murdoch caught in the middle between the two. The version of the Punisher in DD was great, though I can certainly see how there's only so much road to run with that character in terms of credible story arc.


My current watch, having finished the excellent This Town is now Ripley. This is Netflix's take on the Patricia Highsmith character. A multi-part series covering the first book, for now - the same material as adapted in the Minghella picture in 1999. It's a very different take than the latter. Shot entirely in B&W - which I like but will doubtless hurt its popularity among modern audiences - it has a real feel of something that could have been made in the period. A slower pace - at least based on the first episode. I've not read the novel so can't fairly say which version is closest thereto. I do very much enjoy this new version ,though. It feels to me to be very much more like a film made in the period rather than one set in the period (a reference point might be what Lynch did with The Elephant Man); I rather hope it proves popular enough that they make a series out of each of the five Ripley novels, each made in the style of the cinema of the period in which it is set. That would be fun. Not holding my breath, of course: this being Netflix, the more popular it is, the more likely they'll immediately kill it off after one series. Oh well!

 

[Doctor Strange]

Edward... I lost access to Disney a while ago, the last Marvel series I watched was Moon Knight... which like most of them, underwhelmed. WandaVision was the only one that really impressed me. And Hawkeye was better than I expected - that Rogers: The Musical sequence is hilarous. I didn't like Loki or The Falcon and Winter Solider at all.

And I didn't care for the Punisher series, but I'm not a fan of the character to start with. My comics tastes were set earlier, 60s to mid-70s, before "grim and gritty" became THE approach. (That said, I'd bought the Spider-Man issue where the Punisher was introduced back in 1974... but I sold it along with 90% of my comics collection a couple of years ago.) Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen, but I was no longer a regular comics reader during the ultra-violent 80s/90s.

I will get around to watching Ripley. I'm more interested in it being in b/w than the actual story, though. And isn't Andrew Scott, as talented as he is, kinda too old now to play Ripley?

I'm not getting your comment about The Elephant Man. Sure, it's in b/w (shot by the great Freddie Francis) and is rather traditionally presented for David Lynch, but it's a film of its time. OTOH, maybe I just feel that way because I saw it theatrically in 1980 when it was new. (Interesting trivia tidbit: The Elephant Man was produced by Mel Brooks' company... and Mel kept his name off the credits/ads because he wanted the film taken seriously.)

And re Ridley Scott, I can't think of another producer/director who's so prolific... and uneven. He repeatedly makes truly great films back to back with simply terrible ones. For every Alien and Gladiator in his filmography, there's a Black Rain or Robin Hood (like ExodusG&K, another de-mythologizing of a classic story that utterly backfires for me.)

I rather liked Scott's recent The Last Duel, which seemingly hardly anyone saw. I thought it did a nice job of attacking its story Rashomon-style (with a screenplay assist on the feminine-POV act from Nicole Holofcener, whose wise films I generally like.) But some of Scott's biggest hits - like Kingdom of Heaven and The Martian - just don't work for me.

 

[Edward]

Edward... I lost access to Disney a while ago, the last Marvel series I watched was Moon Knight... which like most of them, underwhelmed. WandaVision was the only one that really impressed me. And Hawkeye was better than I expected - that Rogers: The Musical sequence is hilarous. I didn't like Loki or The Falcon and Winter Solider at all.

And I didn't care for the Punisher series, but I'm not a fan of the character to start with. My comics tastes were set earlier, 60s to mid-70s, before "grim and gritty" became THE approach. (That said, I'd bought the Spider-Man issue where the Punisher was introduced back in 1974... but I sold it along with 90% of my comics collection a couple of years ago.) Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen, but I was no longer a regular comics reader during the ultra-violent 80s/90s.

I will get around to watching Ripley. I'm more interested in it being in b/w than the actual story, though. And isn't Andrew Scott, as talented as he is, kinda too old now to play Ripley?

I'm not getting your comment about The Elephant Man. Sure, it's in b/w (shot by the great Freddie Francis) and is rather traditionally presented for David Lynch, but it's a film of its time. OTOH, maybe I just feel that way because I saw it theatrically in 1980 when it was new. (Interesting trivia tidbit: The Elephant Man was produced by Mel Brooks' company... and Mel kept his name off the credits/ads because he wanted the film taken seriously.)

And re Ridley Scott, I can't think of another producer/director who's so prolific... and uneven. He repeatedly makes truly great films back to back with simply terrible ones. For every Alien and Gladiator in his filmography, there's a Black Rain or Robin Hood (like ExodusG&K, another de-mythologizing of a classic story that utterly backfires for me.)

I rather liked Scott's recent The Last Duel, which seemingly hardly anyone saw. I thought it did a nice job of attacking its story Rashomon-style (with a screenplay assist on the feminine-POV act from Nicole Holofcener, whose wise films I generally like.) But some of Scott's biggest hits - like Kingdom of Heaven and The Martian - just don't work for me.

Scott definitely is wide-ranging, I'm not a fan of all of his stuff by any means.

Re TEM, I mean Lynch went to some effort to root it in the style of an earlier type of cinematography, which is what they've done with Ripley. I see echoes of Hitchcock, bits of classic European cinema of that period, elements of noir. A lot of people who really liked the 1999 version just won't have it, but I found it much more interesting than a retread of that. Scott definitely is playing much younger than he should be. By my reckoning, Dickie needs to be out of university long enough that it's becoming a bit sad him having this eternal post-College gap year, and Ripley should be around the same age. That would put them anywhere between 26 and 30 imo. Scott is 47. That said, he's a very young-looking 47, and one of the bonuses of the B&W and the way it's all shot is that he doesn't look 'too old' for the role to my eyes. I'm hoping this also means he can credibly play Ripley in the later novels in a continuation of this series. but of course that's only if Netflix don't pull their usual stunt...